alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 30, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANDREW T. VO, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A LARRY VO, VIET LE, TAM 

VAN LE AND VO-LE, INC., Appellant

NO. 14-14-00994-CV V.

HO KIM DOAN, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Ho Kim Doan, 

signed, September 16, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of 

the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Andrew T. Vo, Individually and d/b/a Larry Vo, Viet 

Le, Tam Van Le and Vo-Le, Inc., jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in 

this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with No S8

QPM#

AIR-ANM-Q30-F6

Date: December 17,2008

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

V>ID - 00-:;7 FDMS Docket No. FAA";<OO - _

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, Ri\i\, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date

PATS (DeCrane Aerospace) Wayne Shade .J II lie - 2009

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master list to Verify ThaI This is the Correct Revision Before Use
**EXHIBIT 32.1**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of Max & Erma’s Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending February 18, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Todd B. Barnum, the Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.      /s/ Todd B. Barnum   Todd B. Barnum, Chairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer     March 28, 2007  This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed“filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report,irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
24
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of RegeneRx (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, C. Neil Lyons, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                      The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)                      The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in thisreport.

 

 

 

 

| Date:  November  14, 2007 |   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|

 

 

|   | /s/C. Neil Lyons        |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | C. Neil Lyons           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            6991
<SECURITIES>                                      4400
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5016
<ALLOWANCES>                                        44
<INVENTORY>                                       5012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1624
<PP&E>                                            3557
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   27080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4718
<BONDS>                                            140
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           746
<OTHER-SE>                                       19287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     27080
<SALES>                                          28917
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 28917
<CGS>                                            13083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  8893
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (404)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7345
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2656
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4689
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4689
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
        

</TABLE>
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10023.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10023.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
1210-AB32-2-1469.html[7/26/2015 5:31:26 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwg-xju7

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1965

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Rebecca King

General Comment

I have been planning for my retirement since I started working at 17 years of age. Stay out of my personal

 business.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2014

h0917 

# Order

Clerk September 24, 2014

148531

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148531

COA: 318145

Genesee CC: 12

- 030097

- FC

KRISTOPHER KYLE McCHESTER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 2, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration, as on leave granted, of whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing

based on a misscoring of Offense Variable (OV) 4 (psychological injury to victim), MCL

777.34. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We further DIRECT the Court of Appeals to REMAND this case first to the

Genesee Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003

- 03, so that the

circuit court can determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint

counsel to represent the defendant in the Court of Appeals.
Exhibit 99.1

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
          PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Bankshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted pursuant to
[SECTION]906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that  1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.


-------------------------
Kenneth D. Gibbons
Chief Executive Officer


November  14, 2002


<PAGE>  32
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 89 $7,565.00

0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $7,565

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

TBD $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
-----Original Message----- 

Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:19 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I read article in Washington post and this email was provided to make comments. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/get-there/is-your-adviser-truly-protecting-yourretirement/2015/09/10/9a66a2fe-564d-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html 

In general, I support efforts to increase transparency of advisor fees and also clarity on whether an 

advisory is acting as a true fiduciary. I have a couple examples below in which my best interest was not 

considered, or more bluntly, where my advisor made recommendations that resulted in more fees, even 

after I discussed options that would avoid such fees:

1. I rolled over my 401k to an IRA with an advisor at smith Barney several years ago. These were class A

shares of American funds. This was done at 1:1 ratio without fees. I then transferred this account to 

Edward jones. This was done at 1:1 without fees. However, in later meeting with my advisor at EJ, I 

inquired about another similar rollover to EJ and it was explained that I'd have to 'sell' these shares, 

then rollover the cash. If I wanted to have same class A shares of American funds, I'd then have to 

purchase with the sales charge 5% or so upfront load. Thereby losing 5% value. I explained that I 

transferred 1:1 at SB previously and the advisor was adamant that this was not possible. I went back to 

my old SB files and confirmed 1:1 transfer. 

2. I have a 529 education account with EJ, with a different advisor than 1 above. I wanted to trade class

A American funds at 1:1. The advisor informed me I had to sell these and then purchase Class A at 

loaded fee of 5%. I questioned this, as wanted to avoid fee. Like above, the advisor was adamant that 

this was not possible. I then left office and called American funds. They confirmed that I can trade funds 

in class A without load, including on 529 account. (This is also on American funds website). I then went 

back to advisor. She said she wasn't aware of this possibility but would 'call her national office' to 

confirm, since she doesn't know the rules for 'all the numerous fund families'. I left and she called me 

back 10 minutes later and confirmed I was correct, and she agreed to place order at 1:1 trade. 

In both cases above, I believe EJ advisors were knowingly recommending trades/transfers that resulted 

in higher fees, and direct reduction in value to my accounts. I believe this is intentional and systematic 

based on fact that both advisor gave similar advice. Note that American funds is the largest mutual fund 

that EJ offers, so believe the advisors know the rules on trading to avoid fees, but knowingly make 

recommendations to increase their fee, at expense of their client. 

M L
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 304

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 808) to provide certain

safeguards with respect to the domestic steel industry.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 5, 2001

Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 808) to provide

certain safeguards with respect to the domestic steel

industry.

1 Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this

2 resolution the House shall resolve into the Committee of

3 the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider4 ation of the bill (H.R. 808) to provide certain safeguards

5 with respect to the domestic steel industry. The first read6 ing of the bill shall be dispensed with and all points of

7 order against the bill and its consideration are waived.

8 General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

9 exceed three hours, to be equally divided and controlled

10 by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio and a Member opposed thereto.
2

•HRES 304 IH

1 After general debate, the bill shall be considered as having

2 been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. The

3 amendment set forth in section 2 of this resolution shall

4 be considered as having been adopted in the House and

5 in the Committee of the Whole. No other amendment to

6 the bill shall be in order except two amendments to section

7 5 (excise tax on steel) (as amended by the amendment

8 set forth in section 2 of this resolution) of which one may

9 be offered by a majority party member and one by a mi10 nority party member. At the conclusion of the consider11 ation of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise

12 and report the bill to the House with such amendments

13 as may have been adopted. The previous question shall

14 be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

15 thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except

16 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If

17 the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has

18 come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legisla19 tive day the House shall, immediately after the third daily

20 order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into

21 the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of

22 the bill.

23 SEC. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is

24 as follows: Strike section 2 and titles I, III, and IV of

25 the bill; redesignate sections 201 through 204 as sections
3

•HRES 304 IH

1 2 through 5, respectively; strike the center heading of title

2 II; and redesignate the cross-references accordingly.

Æ
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-16-00311-CR

____________________

TRAVIS OLIVER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court 

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 21,877 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On May 13, 2016, the trial court sentenced Travis Oliver on a conviction for

sexual assault of a child. Oliver filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2016. The 

trial court signed a certification in which the court certified that this is a pleabargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the trial court’s certification to the Court 

of Appeals. On September 6, 2016, we notified the parties that we would dismiss 

the appeal unless the appellant established grounds for continuing the appeal. No 
2

response has been filed. Because the trial court’s certification shows the defendant 

does not have the right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on October 4, 2016

Opinion Delivered October 5, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Edward A. Brennan do hereby appoint John W. Rowe and Randall E. Mehrberg, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on
my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2005 of Exelon Corporation, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform all
things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.





/s/ Edward A. BrennanEdward A. Brennan




DATE: February 11, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS FILED IN THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          13,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  188,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,930
<INVENTORY>                                    236,327
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               491,696
<PP&E>                                         289,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                 114,033
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,041,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          253,197
<BONDS>                                        477,276
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           534
<OTHER-SE>                                     239,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,041,764
<SALES>                                      1,143,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,154,294
<CGS>                                          840,331
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  840,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,227)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,536)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,536)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 51840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4439]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 7, 2007, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), IMS Global Learning Consortium, 
Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recover of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, K12, Inc., 
Herndon, VA has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 
55283).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 15, 
2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on July 24, 2007 (72 FR 40331).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-4439 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```